ClockworkDragonfly's page

Rapiers as DEX based weapons, if you're pushing for realism, really comes down to which period/style of rapier, which school of fencing, and what style of combat you're looking at.

Early period rapiers with the more spike-like blade with a thick cross section were absolutely more STR based and could puncture armour with a solid thrust. Later period dueling rapiers were thinner, lighter and much more of a "swish & flick" affair that relied on quickness and placement but were often only really used in a "to the blood" style of organized combat.

Meh, the armour weights are hit or miss. You can find "evidence" to support it either way depending on where you look. Some of it's reasonable, such as full plate being close in weight to period tournament armour, though that was technically heavier than the full plate that would have been worn by soldiers in the field since it was sports gear rather than fighting gear. Some of it's less reasonable, such as much of the maille which is closer to modern recreation armour which is usually made of thicker wire than period maille.

One thing to keep in mind is that the concepts of "fantasy" armour in most RPGs are anachronisms dating to what we knew of history back when the original D&D came out. That was an understanding of history which was based less on actual history and more on the Victorian idea of reconstructionism (the origin of Vikings supposedly wearing horned helms, for example) which sometimes led to the Victorians just making s$%@ up that sounded cool/plausible. It's not until very recently (in a relative historical sense) western culture started actually getting interested in and rediscovering the truth behind its own lineage of martial arts. Even then, most game designers leave that stuff in as a sort of homage to our collective gaming roots rather than stress over realism and/or accuracy.

Your thread title actually illustrates the argument against a fluff change like this rather well, if you think about it deeply enough.

Yeah, sure, you could use either a knife or a spoon to eat a really thick, gloppy porridge that sticks to things. And that would be great if all you're ever going to eat is porridge. But you wouldn't eat soup with a knife, and you sure as hell wouldn't want to try to cut a tough, poorly cooked steak with a spoon. You also wouldn't cut rope, skin a deer, or whittle a long stick into a makeshift spear with a spoon. So the knife is a much more useful tool than a spoon once you've finished your porridge.

What I'm saying here, is that within the narrow confines of the example, yes the fluff change seems fine. In many cases though, a sword potentially has much more utility than a shield. As an example, using your sword/shield = sword/sword pairing, if an sword using ally drops his sword off a cliff because he did something stupid you wouldn't just toss him your shield and say "Here, I was just using this to defend anyway." So when you add in the other characters and potential non-combat situation that might arise, those simple fluff changes lose a bit of their simplicity and you kind of start seeing everyone fighting with Swiss Army Knives.

One "personality" I've considered emulating in a LE character and that I see as a pretty good embodiment of at least one flavour of lawful evil is Dexter Morgan from the TV show "Dexter" and the series of novels by Jeff Lindsay.

Sure, when he violates the "Code of Harry" he edges a bit closer to CE, but for the most part the way he channels his murderous serial killer urges into cold blooded vigilantism definitely strikes a LE chord with me.

I also think DC Comics' The Riddler, when he keeps his cool, makes for an interesting case study in LE behavior. It's not the type of LE personality that fits in with the OP's character background though.

voska66 wrote:

The way I look at it is the lance is a two handed weapon. You apply the 1.5 damage. Simple as that.

You can use it with one hand but the only reason you can is because you are mounted. The mount allows that. I don't think that changes the lance to a one handed weapon though. It's more like the mount is taking the place of the other hand due the nature of being mounted and in a charge.

That's debatable, however. The cavalier order of the sword gains the ability to add his mount's strength bonus to the damage. If the intent was to let the lance keep it's 1.5 strength multiplier because of the mount, then it seems strange that they're letting it contribute twice.

Depends on how much you know about the use of a lance. The mount's speed provides the rider with momentum, but it's up to the rider to have the strength and skill to apply that momentum (which is the problem with house rules that just dump the rider's strength and use the mount's instead.) They do not behave as a single entity. Early in this thread, someone even pointed to an article that explains the physics behind this. The cavalier is assumed to have more specialized training than the average lance wielder though, and as a result perhaps knows techniques in controlling his horse, positioning his body, and positioning his lance that allow them to truly behave as a single entity and allow him to pull benefit from the strength of his mount as well as his own physical conditioning.

It feels to me like the intent is that weapons used with two hands get 1.5 and used in one get 1x, not that the designator of one-handed or two-handed weapon decides the multiplier. There's nothing in RAW to support this, though. I just wish it would get cleared up one way or another.

RAW actually seems to go against this interpretation, by going out of it's way to point out a change in designators in other situations.

And again, I point out that the lance is not actually being wielded in just one hand... a fact that people in favor of the 1x interpretation seem to keep glossing over. The lance is being braced with the entire upper body (this type of lance being uniquely designed for just that), freeing the off hand to hold a shield or the reigns. The horse is doing all the footwork, which allows the rider to dedicate use of his legs to provide the actual strength of the blow.

For everyone in the thread who complained about "realism" of using a lance two-handed, it is completely realisitic. That is the fashion lances were used from Alexander the Great on up to the Middle Ages.

Sorry if this was already mentioned, but I didn't read through all 7 pages.

True , though I generally think of those as being spears since they weren't designed to be couched the way later period lances were. The art in the rulebook even shows a later period lance rather than one that would have been commonly used the way you refer to. And no, I didn't see it mentioned when I read the thread, buy it got pretty silly and I started skimming about halfway through.

EDIT: Seeker beat me to it, angry teething daughter makes timely posts impossible. And evidently I was wrong about it not being mentioned... that's what I get for skimming.

Actually he is not dead on. You don't get extra damage for using a two hand weapon. You get extra damage for using a weapon in two hands. The two are not synonymous. A long sword which can be wielded in one or two hands is an example of this. If a human used a greatsword for a halfing in one hand it would also not get 1.5 the strength mod.

Edit:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.

Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

As you can see the intent is for the two hands to be factor, not the weapon itself.

Your example fails to take into account the entry for weapon size where it states:

"The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all."

That clearly says that the greatsword in your example would be downgraded to a one handed weapon in the hands of a medium size creature, and yet the designation for the lance remains unchanged when used one handed while mounted.

Secondly, my comment could easily have read "You're dead on ABOUT LANCES" if one needs a quantifier to prevent this sort of response. The lance is an awkward weapon for the whole one-handed/two-handed issue anyway because, as I said earlier on, it's technically not being used one handed since the underarm or cradle is acting as the second hand for purposes of control and leverage.

So, the question(s). The wording for the lance seems to indicate that it's a 2-handed weapon. Period. While the wielder is mounted, it can be used in one hand. But it's still a 2-handed weapon. Shouldn't it be giving 1.5 damage on a hit anyways, as its weapon type has not changed? (I think that was noted back on Page 1.)

You're pretty much dead-on there. Evidently no one involved in this discussion has ever watched a real joust. As an armourer, I work with both show and competition jousters on occasion, so I kind of wish I'd been here for the discussion at the time, since it probably could have been worked out in less pages. When riding at your opponent with a lance, you "couch" it, which is basically tucking it under your arm (and in some cases, setting it into a purpose made cradle attached to your armour). When couched, your underarm (or the cradle) in this case is effectively acting as a second hand bracing the rear of the lance.

So, while mounted, by rules, looks like my little guy should be able to carry a shield in his other hand, and direct the mount with a relatively simple ride check. I think the check DC in this case--especially charging with a lance--might be too low, but nothing else seems wonky. Am I missing a (non-house) rule here?

You haven't missed a thing. In fact, you seem to have seen what many others missed... which is that the RAW and RAI do not conflict at all. It's just that no one on either side of the argument understood how a lance works in real life well enough to quell the argument.

The DC for the ride check isn't really too low. Technically, when attacking with a lance, you're not even doing all the steering with your knees. You'd be holding your mount's reigns with your shield side hand (any shield usable while mounted is both strapped to the arm as well as having a handle to brace & adjust angle with, giving you enough use of the reigns to steer the mount) with the horse being trained to react to even the most minute movement of the reigns. As a GM, I would consider requiring a ride check at a higher DC to remain mounted following a charge depending on the size of the target though.

Yes, pretty nasty damage--on a hit--but as was pointed out, this isn't something that can be done every turn or even most turns, even with significant Feat investment. And then most riders will be in range for a counterattack, without the usual front-liner Feats to weather the storm as well.

Yeah it's nasty... but again, that fits in with the real world just fine. The couched lance was a nasty weapon, that's why they were used pretty successfully until WWI (and in some theaters, they saw successful use throughout WWI as well.)

ClockworkDragonfly wrote:

For game purposes, I think most posters here are on the right track to say that a disguise check modified by the armour penalty would be suitable. In my game, I would require a more heavily armoured character to strip their armour of its more complex joints (and thus reducing its AC) before even allowing such a check.

I will reiterate my earlier assertion that the inverse of AC value of the armor's "base type" rather than the Check Penalty should be the way to go.

Masterwork armor shouldn't reduce a Disguise check penalty, and Masterwork Studded Leather should still have some penalty. As Clockwork says, Full Plate should have a considerable penalty, and a -9 inverse of it's armor value rather than the mere -6 normally applied to Dex. and certain physical checks seems more in line.

Also, as Clockwork states, it would be necessary to remove pieces and lower the AC value. Using an inverse of the AC value thus is a no-brainer in this case. "What's my AC going to be if I lower my check penalty by 2?" ask the Player. Well, now the answer is clear without more haggling over things that are outside the normal rules.

FWIW,

Rez

I like your idea of using an inverse of the base protective value to modify the disguise check. I must have missed that in my first reading. It doesn't really account for bulkier armours that have less protective value, but it's still a relatively easy rule of thumb to follow with a fair amount of diversity.

I disagree a bit that masterwork armour shouldn't lower the penalty though, but I think that's just a difference in how I picture the fluff than any real game rules reason. I make armour (for stage, LARP, and reenactment) in real life, mostly I make what can be referred to as "munitions grade" armour. That is a nice way of saying "one size fits most" which was the historical standard. When I think of masterwork armour in game, I think of the pieces I took the extra time and effort to fit more closely to the intended wearer, where I used articulations with smaller tolerances to to produce a smoother moving piece, things such as that. Some of those factors would make it easier to hide armour, mainly a cleaner fit would allow the character to wear clothes closer to their actual size and would have less excess strap material to bind down.

In my PA pathfinder game I ran into a conundrum. The PC's downed a mutated ostrich with a very high natural armor. They then wanted to process the hide (yes one had armor smithing and another had Profession - Tanner =) in the hopes of creating a tougher set of leather or hide. Are there any official Pathfinder rules for this? How would you DM's rule?

If your players are willing to spend the months it takes to tan it (I've done both deer and cow using swords & sorcery appropriate methods, the deer took 4 months and the cow took a little over 6) and can acquire the appropriate materials for doing so (lye for preparing the hide, oak bark liquor for the actual tanning, waxes and fats for finishing... remember that the profession skill doesn't provide these for the player unless they own and pay upkeep on a shop and knowing how to use the chemicals doesn't equate to knowing how to make them) I would allow it with all the proper profession checks.

Tanning also isn't a dunk it & leave it process. The hide has to be agitated periodically (at least every 3 days early in), and growth on top of the solution has to be scummed off, etc. That means the player would have to hire someone to keep an eye on it or give up adventuring for a fairly long while and take to tanning full time.

Making proper armour is also an involved process, and can easily take a month or more depending on how fitted the result is expected to be (and they do want it to be fitted, or you can impose all sorts of penalties). They'd also need to acquire all the proper rivets, buckles, wooden forms for stretching and shaping, etc... all of which which can get pricey. Like most craft professions, armourers make money by buying their wholesale materials in bulk, working on several suits at a time, having unpaid apprentices do the grunt work, etc.

Icarus Pherae wrote:

Just buy hide armor.... it's already hidden! :P realistically you could hide a chain shirt...that is until you moved.

Actually Chain shirts can be very quiet(own and have worn a chain shirt for years as costume etc) as long as your not seriously running. Even then they are not overly noisy. If you thread black silk ribbon through the links you can go a LONG way to minimizing shine and sound produced by even extreme exertions and it makes nearly no impact on manueverability.

A chain shirt with proper padding under it (the kind you would be wearing for combat anyway) and a belt around the waist can be quite quiet and usually makes no more noise than a nomral shirt if your walking around casually or moving quickly but evenly.

Agreed. I've put a large long coat over my reenactment gear and gone into restaurants only to have the waitstaff look at me in total shock and surprise when I take the coat off and am amoured cap a pé in chain and random bits of plate.

The hardest (or impossible) parts of armour to hide would be the joints on your more "full" armours. "Full" plate, for example, often has haute guards (the large "fins" extending upwards from the shoulder), besagews (round plates that are attached to other pieces to defend the inside of the knee & elbow joints and sometimes the armpit) and the like... all of which would be too large to realistically fit under any garment without notice. Any joint protection with lames (plates that slide over each other to add flexibility) would bind... that means spaulders & pauldrons (shoulders), full knee cops, full elbow cops, and faulds (hip/waist protection). All of the rigid protection, however, can be hidden under overlarge clothing without too much issue if properly fitted... that means rerebrace & vambrace (upper arm and forearm), cuisse & greave (thigh and shin/calf), and a breast & backplate.

In fact, many LARPs have had to institute rules disallowing armour to be hidden under garb so that referees can tell who is armoured and who isn't.

For game purposes, I think most posters here are on the right track to say that a disguise check modified by the armour penalty would be suitable. In my game, I would require a more heavily armoured character to strip their armour of its more complex joints (and thus reducing its AC) before even allowing such a check.